Absolutely perfect fit civs
- Persians
- Qazaqs
- Omani
- Moroccans
- Shona
Arguable but interesting to consider:
- Koreans
- Thais
- Kongolese
- Mayans (this should replace the current “Mexico”)
- Mapuche
- Apache (this should replace the current “USA”)
- Apache (this should replace the current “USA”)
Ah yeah, the United States of Apache
1 Like
Olá, desculpa, mas discordo de boa parte do seu texto.
Não existe, como regular se tal civilização é mais ou menos importante, na atual situação do “age of empires 3 DE”. Até por que, com base no que você disse, está longe de ser um jogo perfeito…o que quero dizer com isso, é que o jogo ae tornou uma coletânea de civilizações que não possuem uma referência cronológica correta, portanto, desde que estejam em períodos aproximados, ou seja, não se distanciem tanto dentro do período em que se passa o Jogo, qualquer civilização é bem vinda e pode ser adicionada.
Como fazer isso? Com base, em pesquisas lançadas pela forgotten Empire, a fim de que possamos votar nas civilizações que queremos que sejam incluídas…algo mais democrático e não baseado em nossas subjetividades…eu sou da América do Sul, queria o Brasil, Argentina, Paraguai etc. Infelizmente não vai ser dessa vez…mas felizmente, depois de um grande hiato, teremos mais civilizações…
Assim, digo: Sejam muito bem vindas: Polônia e Dinamarca!!!
1 Like
Makes sense to me. Would you rather have a joke of a country like Canada, or some kickass civs like Haida and Cree? It’s the same for Mexico and USA. Both are wildly anachronistic and really shouldn’t be more than a revolution. Civs like Maya or Comanche (not so much Apache) would be way better representatives of the region.
5 Likes
But that is not what the post said. It was about removing some DLC civs we already paid for, which is obviously nonsense.
10 Likes
Anachronistic how? They existed within the game’s timeframe.
2 Likes
Age of empires 3 tries to recreate 400 years of history, and no less than 100.
1 Like
No it doesn’t. It grabs historical things from 1500 to 1900 and puts it in a game. For example, rodeleros (which were included in the game since it’s release) didn’t even exist for 100 years. And yet you can make them fight Gatling guns, which in real history would have never happened, but withing the logic of the game it’s perfectly normal.
4 Likes
The game is intended to start during the 16th century. Then it’s your choice to continue using rodeleros in later stage of the game, or not.
I should put this quote in my OP.
I’m not talking about units, I’m talking about civilizations. Furthermore, although you can use the rodelero in the imperial age, Spain has a set of non-archaic units according to each age, something that does not happen with the United States and Mexico, which have always been in the industrial age, although they try to deceive you with what “age advances.”
5 Likes
It almost certainly won’t happen but it’s not nonsense. USA and Mexico are a mistake that shouldn’t have been added to the game as a full civ. It’s a perfectly reasonable opinion to want them removed or reworked into better revolutions.
2 Likes
That’s a valid opinion but I personally want Brazil to be added
3 Likes
US & Mexico are oddballs.
If they needed to have been in, they should have just been their respective mother country civ, albeit in colonial aesthetics, up until the Fortress/Industrial. Before then, they should have had colonial British American units or Spanish American units (there was enough variety to still have different unit art/models) and colonial archiecture. After their respective Age of independence, they could go crazy with new nationality stuff. Gatling guns would have appear in Industrial, as would Steamers and Ironclads ( all of which could have been special Ind. upgrades to existing stuff). They’re just so out of place.
Looking at older games, such as American Conquest or even Rise of Nations, you can pick the US, however they will always start as the British/Euro up until ‘their’ age.
3 Likes
Yes, I agree they probably shouldn’t have been added to the game (at least before many civs from other continents). But if they are removed, customers would have to get their money back at the very least.
2 Likes
Rescinding paid content would be extreme and unfair. But it could be possible to remove them as standalone civs and retain the majority of the content they added by expanding on revolutions. But a DLC based on revolutions might be too convoluted.
As much as i agree that Mexico and the USA don’t really have a place in the games time-frame that ship has sailed now. Removing content they spend months making, and factions people like playing won’t happen.
6 Likes
Oh absolutely - I agree. For the reason of them being in it already, I’d throw Brazil in as well as say that’s the last of the Fed state style civs, and then move on.
1 Like
You just have to acknowledge that the USA and Mexican civs are not even Expansions, but only solo civs.
These are completely additional DLCs that you don’t have to buy if you’re not interested - because they don’t add anything else except one civ and one Historical Battle (no other content than other DLCs).
2 Likes
The only redeeming feature of Brazil is it’s not Spain 3.0. If we have to get another anachronistic colonial nation they should at least do something interesting like Gran Colombia or Haiti.
1 Like